The Biblical Flood and its Nature

Theres a small but whacky contingent of Russians who insist that oil is abiogenic and we will find more and more as we drill deeper. They are mistaking the Tropsch process as going on in the earths mantle and crust. So far though, ALL oil found is associated with fossil foraminiferans molluscs and radiolarians.

But I thought satan put the fossils there to trick us into thinking the earth was old. Therefor it's logical to conclude that the oil isn't that old either.

I think that we have established that no flood of "Biblical" proportions had occured anytime in the human occupied past. Several legends have established a flood in their myths and it would be an interesting exercise to trace these legends (sort of a mythological fossil record) to determine from whence they originated and how they traveled about.Im sure someone has done this as MS or PhD theses. The PBS documentary of "INDIA" came close last night.

As i pointed out earlier, a good many of what are referred to as "flood myths" are in fact cosmogonies which allege that land was created when it rose from universal waters, which is definitely not a legend of a deluge. Every example i've seen offered of a flood myth among Amerindians has been one of these land out of the waters cosmogonies. I rather suspect that those who allege a universal occurrence of flood myths, apart from ignoring how largely any vaguely remembered local flood event would loom in folk tales, are grasping at ethnological straws in an effort to make a feeble case appear more respectable.

Funny but I had one of America's best petroleum geologists (C. Warren Hunt) tell me that about 15 years ago and there are well written books (in English) ojn the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/Deep-Hot-Biosphere-Thomas-Gold/dp/0387985468

Maybe so, but there is absolutely no evidence that oil is abiogenic, no matter how many off the track ex wildcatters say so. If you like to believe this, then its up to you to provide evidence that is more than defining the Tropsch process . Petroleum reserves are unique, like wines. They carry with them the fingerprints of the paleo and geochemical horizons from which they emanated.
We can fingerprint oils by their basins and, along with the basin chemistry are unique, fossils that define the ages of the deposist. Its this knowledge, and the predictive capability it affords that keeps oil exploration from being a drill and pray exercise.
If you cant even attempt to understand the science behind it, why not just shut up and stop making yourself look so ineducable gunga.

My understanding is that several major oil deposits are found in places where there is no possibility of them arising from the bodies of dead microorganisms or fish as is commonly thought.

Gold's statem,ents are basically extraordinary extensions of logic. For example hes said that weve never been able to synthesize "petroleum" in the lab. That is technically correct but, in recent experiments to produce renewables, theyve been able to produce the "components" of various fractions , and all are from biological processes. For example, you (gunga) are enamoured of the algae production of diesel.(A middle fraction). Diesel is nothing more than a complex ester that was manufactured by an epoxide contact process on the fatty acids that make up the largest part of petroleum. Maybe we havent synthesized it in alab, but nature synthesizes it every day.

The seafloor is producing methane at a remarkeable rate. This methane , when compressed and heated, will transform into the major components of petroleum. all it needs is time, heat, pressure and a source .


When someone provides good evidence of abiogenic oil, Id love to believe in it. However, now, we have only wells that tap out at about 8K feet and thats barely the skin of the crust. Wed need to drill holes to over 20K feet to even test the mechanisms of the hypothesis. The abiogenic guys are safe in their pronouncements today, because , to fund such deep drilling would break banks and budgets.

BTW, Ive used Hunts "...Violence..." book and theres really nothing radically new about abiogenesis. He stipulates to source rock geology and his only points are that the silane/Hydrogen mechanisms generate potentials for "Tropsch process" methanes and longer chains in ore fields. This is not really abiogenetic petroleum, its more like the fact that certain hydrocarbons can be found associated with silica melts and silane/siloxane gels.

. Please name some of these , maybe Im not up to speed on what youre finding.

Noah and his crew were in a bit of a pickle: It was the sh... er um manure: god hadn't planned on the animals being scared and producing so much of it. They were throwing mounds of it into the sea. It was getting huge. So much it was even peeping above the waters. Of course, they daren't set foot on it , but let the sewage fester.
Eventually the waters subsided and this decaying lump of putrefaction was now exposed. And there it stayed for millenia becoming increasingly rotten. Until Columbus discovered it.

I hope, everyone gets some of Noah's soup/pudding today (aka Aşure/Ashure) - it's the Day of Ashura this day.

I'll try to find a reference for that one. The subject comes up here and there, usually in discussions of "peak oil" and the like, and it actually came up in some sort of a debate on FR a couple of weeks back and one guy noted the point I made and nobody tried to argue the case. Again I'll try to find it.

Somebody at Free Republic made a bullshit statement about science, which in fact had no scientific basis--are we supposed to be surprised that Freepers didn't argue the point? Is this Gunga Dim's source for "hard science?"

Im sure that, no matter what he finds, it will be certainly expressive of the gunga "leitmotiff"

OK, Walter, i'll bite . . . what's Noah's soup?

Ya gets 2 crackers ya ole fool.